A new continental design comes with big risks for Harper

It didn’t take long for the on-line comment boards to light up Thursday with denunciations of a proposed new perimeter-security arrangement for Canada and the United States. The draft agreement, reported to be nearing completion, is peppered with phrases like cross-border sharing, joint approaches, closer collaboration. It’s the kind of stuff that gets Canadians thinking of slippery slopes.

Talk of the Americanization of Canada is old hat, very passé. But fears of it could be reawakened by a new North American perimeter proposal. With the U.S in economic tumult and still gripped by security anxieties, this is a time when Canadians are more inclined to draw away than enter into closer bondage.

This proposed bilateral deal is being fashioned by the Harper government without public consultation. As opposition critics said yesterday, on something as important as this, fait accomplis are not the way to go. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff charged in the Commons that climate change and energy policy have been surrendered to the Americans. He asked now whether security policy was being secretly yielded as well.

The perimeter agreement calls for a more integrated approach to trade flows and people movements within the North American space. It provides for closer cooperation between law enforcement agencies, a joint approach to screening entrants to each country, a joint approach to port security, more cross-border sharing of information on criminals, a closer working relationship between militaries in emergencies and other integrational steps.

To succeed with the new continental design, the Harper Conservatives will need a major sales pitch. Otherwise they could be handing the opposition parties a political gift right before election season. Canadian nationalists are long experienced in organizing and fighting against continental integration. A border pact called the Security and Prosperity Agreement was negotiated by the Paul Martin government in 2005 but never got off the ground.

All that said, reasonable arguments can be made in support of a perimeter accord. In part because of roadblocks put up at the border by the Americans in the wake of 9/11, bilateral trade volumes have been declining. Percentages of Canadian exports going south of the border reached as high as 86 per cent but have fallen back 10 or so points in recent years. A new bilateral agreement could remove some of the security bottlenecks that have contributed to the decline.

Despite the new markets emerging in China, India and Brazil, the country’s economic future is still tied to the giant next door. As trade experts testify, the American market remains the number one Canadian economic priority – by a longshot.

Chances of a terrorist hit on the United States are always present. In such a scenario, the U.S. could well go into isolationist lockdown. A new perimeter pact could provide safeguards so that, in such a scenario, Canada would not feel the crunch. No deal, it should be said, provides full guarantees. Under Free Trade Agreement provisions, Canada won several rulings during the softwood lumber dispute years back. But Washington did not abide by those rulings, infuriating our free trade negotiators.

Of likely assistance to Prime Minister Harper in trying to gain support for a new accord is President Barack Obama. Despite his domestic nosedive, the Democrat President remains highly popular in Canada. A perimeter deal is not the type of arrangement Mr. Harper could have negotiated with George W. Bush, who was widely loathed in Canadian precincts. Given his right-wing leanings , Mr. Harper is viewed with suspicion by Canadians as being overly fond of the Republican American way. Sensitive to that charge, he ran in the 2006 election on a “Stand Up For Canada” and has been a proud defender of national symbols and Arctic sovereignty since that time.

A top priority for the Harper Conservatives however is law, order and security – and so it is no surprise the PM would be enthusiastic about a new North American arrangement.

But the contemplated new synergies do raise legitimate sovereignty issues. “Since the U.S. economy is collapsing,” wrote one on-line poster, “the only solution for the U.S. is security imperialism.” Others warned off American authorities spying on Canadians, crossing Canadian borders and arresting draft dodgers, and losses of more civil liberties if the country is more closely tied to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “Our buddy Steve is not trustworthy when it comes to security” wrote another poster. “He loves the police state too much.”

If they are moving ahead on a new continental design, the Harper Conservatives had best beware of doing it behind closed doors. It is too significant for that.